Hulk Hogan awarded $115m in Gawker sex tape case
A Florida jury has awarded Hulk
Hogan $115m (£79m) after the gossip news website Gawker published a sex
tape of the retired professional wrestler.
The case, which pitted freedom of the press against a celebrity's right to privacy, has been closely watched.
The video was posted in 2012 after Mr Hogan was secretly recorded having sex with his friend's wife.
Lawyers for Gawker argued that although jurors might find the website's actions distasteful, the concept of freedom of the press was more important to uphold.
Mr Hogan's lawyers said Gawker did not contact him or the woman in the video before the video was published.
"This is not only his victory today, but also anyone else who's been victimised by tabloid journalism," Hogan lawyer David Houston said outside the courtroom.
Gawker, known for its acerbic tone and aggressive coverage of celebrities, maintained that Mr Hogan's private life was newsworthy because he made it part of his public persona.
"He has consistently chosen to put his private life out there, for public consumption," Gawker's lawyer Michael Sullivan said during the trial.
The verdict could lead to more caution among Internet news websites, which frequently have less editorial oversight than traditional media outlets.
Gawker's founder Nick Denton and journalist AJ Daulerio were held liable in the lawsuit.
Mr Denton has said he will appeal against the verdict, arguing that important evidence was not heard by the court.
Mr Hogan, whose given name is Terry Bollea, said the release of the sex tape hurt his career.
He was one of the most popular professional wrestlers of the 1980s and 1990s and later starred in his own reality television show with his family.
In recent years, Mr Hogan's personal problems have conflicted with his one-time child-friendly persona.
His longtime employer World Wrestling Entertainment cut ties with Mr Hogan in July after he was recorded using racial slurs.
Could Hulk Hogan's $115m win against Gawker destroy the gossip site forever?
An Oxford education, elite media lawyers and the constitutional
shield for freedom of the press was not enough to protect Gawker
publisher Nick Denton – and the view of press rights in America – from
the wrath of 6ft 7in, 302lb Hulk Hogan.
On Friday in St Petersburg, Florida, the legendary pro-wrestler, whose real name is Terry Bollea, delivered a $115m legal hit on the iconoclastic web publisher, a victory that signals a significant change in the public’s tolerance for media invasions of privacy – and that could bankrupt the site.
For three weeks jurors heard how Denton, a media star with ambitions of revolutionising news coverage, and AJ Daulerio, a former Gawker editor, had published and refused to take down a 2006 sex tape of Hogan and the wife of his best friend, DJ Bubba “the Love Sponge” Clem.
Denton’s refusal to do so now stands as a fateful decision that could determine whether the 49-year-old publisher goes down as both creator and destroyer of Gawker Media. If the judge in the case imposes as $50m bond on Gawker, which its representatives say it cannot pay, the site and its nine ancillary publications could quickly collapse.
Whether DJ Clem approved of his wife’s extramarital activities – Hogan settled with him for $5,000 – publication of the bedroom events were not. Hogan sued Gawker, Gawker stood on its right to publish, and jurors sided with Hogan, who shed tears in the courtroom when the verdict came down after just six hours of deliberations.
But the question remains: why had Denton insisted on Gawker’s right to publish, flying as it does in a perceptible shift in how the public sees privacy rights?
Denton’s vocal adamance made clear that he was out of step with public sentiment long before the Hogan case came to court. Advocating a philosophy of extreme openness, which he applied to Gawker’s editorial choices, the site has arguably stepped over the line repeatedly. In 2012, Denton said he was “proud to have taken part” in outing a CNN presenter; in 2013 and 2014, it published a string of articles about the private life of a Fox News anchor; and in 2015, it exposed an affair involving a married media executive from a rival firm. The site was accused of “gay-shaming”, and Denton subsequently pledged to make Gawker “20% nicer”.
But Denton’s attempts to apply extreme openness to others could cost the ruin of his company. Like the jurors in Florida, the public is now far less likely to side with the media over privacy issues. It’s an empathetic shift, some argue, that has come from having to manage public and private identities on and offline.
“The public has seen the damage that online speech can do, and is getting sick of the media and becoming very pro-privacy,” said Samantha Barbas, a law professor at the University at Buffalo. “The public is becoming disenchanted with freedom of speech and this verdict is a reflection of that.”
New laws prohibiting “revenge porn”, or growing calls for “the right to be forgotten” are signals of the same shift, she said.
Last month, US sportscaster Erin Andrews was awarded $55m against Marriott Hotels, after a Tennessee jury found the chain had not protected her from being filmed in the shower by a stalker. Last week, a Pennsylvania man pleaded guilty and now faces five years in prison for dumping a trove of nude celebrity images, some including actor Jennifer Lawrence, in 2014 – an event now thought of as a turning point in attitudes toward celebrity privacy.
Throughout the Hogan trial, Denton maintained Hogan’s sexual activities were of legitimate public interest. “We believed the story had value,” Denton said. “That it was true, that it was a story honestly told, and that it was interesting to millions of people.”
Denton has now vowed to appeal the case, arguing the jurors were not given the chance to hear key testimony from Clem. “We feel very positive about the appeal that we have already begun preparing, as we expect to win this case ultimately,” he said in a statement after the verdict.
Regardless of any appeal’s outcome, Denton may have inadvertently ushered in a second phase in the way the media operates. The first came with the founding of Gawker in 2002 as a gossip blog that skewered celebrities and New York media figures. Friday’s verdict could herald a shift in media practices around privacy, reflecting growing disdain for invasions of privacy.
Hogan’s legal team said as much in a statement, calling the verdict: “a statement as to the public’s disgust with the invasion of privacy disguised as journalism”.
“Ordinary people feel like they’ve been burned and this decision could be felt [in the media] very tangibly right away,” Barbas said.
Courts have long grappled with the question of what defines a newsworthy story, and what constitutes “legitimate public concern” under the law – and many celebrities and politicians have come down on the losing side of judges and juries over their high status in the public eye. But the Gawker verdict firmly rejected Denton’s arguments that Hogan’s fame and boasting of his sexual exploits made him any different from an anonymous member of the public.
“The jury’s decision is somewhat of a black box,” said Mary-Rose Papandrea, a University of North Carolina law professor who has represented the an aggressive tabloid, the National Enquirer. “It will be much more interesting and much more important as a legal issue to see what the appellate court says.”
Inadvertently, Denton and Gawker may also have revealed something more about the contemporary dilemma of two personas – the public and private – that celebrities have long since grappled with.
“It’s something we’re all struggling with and that’s kind of what the Hulk Hogan verdict was about,” Barbas said. “Even someone who makes sex part of their public persona deserves a right to privacy in their own intimate lives. It’s an important decision.”
On Friday in St Petersburg, Florida, the legendary pro-wrestler, whose real name is Terry Bollea, delivered a $115m legal hit on the iconoclastic web publisher, a victory that signals a significant change in the public’s tolerance for media invasions of privacy – and that could bankrupt the site.
For three weeks jurors heard how Denton, a media star with ambitions of revolutionising news coverage, and AJ Daulerio, a former Gawker editor, had published and refused to take down a 2006 sex tape of Hogan and the wife of his best friend, DJ Bubba “the Love Sponge” Clem.
Denton’s refusal to do so now stands as a fateful decision that could determine whether the 49-year-old publisher goes down as both creator and destroyer of Gawker Media. If the judge in the case imposes as $50m bond on Gawker, which its representatives say it cannot pay, the site and its nine ancillary publications could quickly collapse.
Whether DJ Clem approved of his wife’s extramarital activities – Hogan settled with him for $5,000 – publication of the bedroom events were not. Hogan sued Gawker, Gawker stood on its right to publish, and jurors sided with Hogan, who shed tears in the courtroom when the verdict came down after just six hours of deliberations.
But the question remains: why had Denton insisted on Gawker’s right to publish, flying as it does in a perceptible shift in how the public sees privacy rights?
Denton’s vocal adamance made clear that he was out of step with public sentiment long before the Hogan case came to court. Advocating a philosophy of extreme openness, which he applied to Gawker’s editorial choices, the site has arguably stepped over the line repeatedly. In 2012, Denton said he was “proud to have taken part” in outing a CNN presenter; in 2013 and 2014, it published a string of articles about the private life of a Fox News anchor; and in 2015, it exposed an affair involving a married media executive from a rival firm. The site was accused of “gay-shaming”, and Denton subsequently pledged to make Gawker “20% nicer”.
But Denton’s attempts to apply extreme openness to others could cost the ruin of his company. Like the jurors in Florida, the public is now far less likely to side with the media over privacy issues. It’s an empathetic shift, some argue, that has come from having to manage public and private identities on and offline.
“The public has seen the damage that online speech can do, and is getting sick of the media and becoming very pro-privacy,” said Samantha Barbas, a law professor at the University at Buffalo. “The public is becoming disenchanted with freedom of speech and this verdict is a reflection of that.”
New laws prohibiting “revenge porn”, or growing calls for “the right to be forgotten” are signals of the same shift, she said.
Last month, US sportscaster Erin Andrews was awarded $55m against Marriott Hotels, after a Tennessee jury found the chain had not protected her from being filmed in the shower by a stalker. Last week, a Pennsylvania man pleaded guilty and now faces five years in prison for dumping a trove of nude celebrity images, some including actor Jennifer Lawrence, in 2014 – an event now thought of as a turning point in attitudes toward celebrity privacy.
Throughout the Hogan trial, Denton maintained Hogan’s sexual activities were of legitimate public interest. “We believed the story had value,” Denton said. “That it was true, that it was a story honestly told, and that it was interesting to millions of people.”
Denton has now vowed to appeal the case, arguing the jurors were not given the chance to hear key testimony from Clem. “We feel very positive about the appeal that we have already begun preparing, as we expect to win this case ultimately,” he said in a statement after the verdict.
Regardless of any appeal’s outcome, Denton may have inadvertently ushered in a second phase in the way the media operates. The first came with the founding of Gawker in 2002 as a gossip blog that skewered celebrities and New York media figures. Friday’s verdict could herald a shift in media practices around privacy, reflecting growing disdain for invasions of privacy.
Hogan’s legal team said as much in a statement, calling the verdict: “a statement as to the public’s disgust with the invasion of privacy disguised as journalism”.
“Ordinary people feel like they’ve been burned and this decision could be felt [in the media] very tangibly right away,” Barbas said.
Courts have long grappled with the question of what defines a newsworthy story, and what constitutes “legitimate public concern” under the law – and many celebrities and politicians have come down on the losing side of judges and juries over their high status in the public eye. But the Gawker verdict firmly rejected Denton’s arguments that Hogan’s fame and boasting of his sexual exploits made him any different from an anonymous member of the public.
“The jury’s decision is somewhat of a black box,” said Mary-Rose Papandrea, a University of North Carolina law professor who has represented the an aggressive tabloid, the National Enquirer. “It will be much more interesting and much more important as a legal issue to see what the appellate court says.”
Inadvertently, Denton and Gawker may also have revealed something more about the contemporary dilemma of two personas – the public and private – that celebrities have long since grappled with.
“It’s something we’re all struggling with and that’s kind of what the Hulk Hogan verdict was about,” Barbas said. “Even someone who makes sex part of their public persona deserves a right to privacy in their own intimate lives. It’s an important decision.”
Hulk Hogan awarded $115m in Gawker sex tape case
![Hulk Hogan awarded $115m in Gawker sex tape case]()
Reviewed by Unknown
on
14:12:00
Rating:
No comments: